This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Association of Research Libraries firstname.lastname@example.org Charles Lowry Executive Director Association of Research Libraries email@example.com Paul Hanges Professor, Associate Chair & Graduate Director—Psychology University of Maryland firstname.lastname@example.org Juliet Aiken Research Graduate Assistant—Psychology University of Maryland email@example.com Kristina Justh Customer Relations Coordinator, Statistics & Measurement Association of Research Libraries firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract ClimateQUAL™ is the latest assessment tool in the assessment toolkit development by ARL and accessible through the StatsQUAL® gateway to library assessment tools. The tools available through StatsQUAL® are combining the power of both quantitative and qualitative methods and are integrated into a platform that allows easy data collection, analysis and presentation of the results. The goal is to establish an integrated suite of library assessment tools that tell users’ library success stories, emphasize customerdriven libraries and demonstrate responsiveness and engagement in improving customer
service. This paper accomplishes three learning outcomes: (1) identifies the elements of a healthy organization in order to improve customer service; (2) identifies the dimensions that are relevant to a healthy organization climate in order to measure them effectively; and (3) helps us understand the relation between organization climate, culture and diversity as measured by the ClimateQUAL™: Organizational Climate and Diversity Assessment.
Introduction This paper reports the latest research from a multi-year research project to develop an internal staffing survey measuring organizational climate and diversity. This paper reports on the research, regrounding and refinement of the Organizational Climate and Diversity Assessment (OCDA) survey protocol at the University of Maryland and the establishment of the ClimateQUAL™: OCDA service at the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).
In 2006, Paul Hanges, Associate Chair of the Psychology Department, presented at the Library Assessment Conference in Charlottesville, VA, the plenary speech on “Diversity, Organizational Climate, and Organizational Culture: The Role They Play in Influencing Organizational Effectiveness.”1 The paper discussed (1) the concepts of organizational climate and culture and the role that they play in effectively managing workforce diversity and (2) how workforce diversity is actually an organizational imperative in our rapidly changing environment. The elements of diversity, organizational climate, and
organizational culture can combine to create the ‘healthy organization.’ The healthy organization can manage and empower its diverse human resources to enable the organization to achieve its goals.
These ideas were first tested in 1999 when the University of Maryland Libraries partnered with the University of Maryland Industrial and Organizational Psychology program to develop an assessment of the climate and culture of the University of Maryland libraries, the Organizational Climate and Diversity Assessment (OCDA). In 2004, the University of Maryland Libraries once again partnered with the Industrial Organizational Psychology program to provide an updated ‘snapshot.’ The analyses revealed that a number of positive changes had occurred over the four year interval between the two surveys. In summary, this work with the University of Maryland not only identified the dimensions of climate and culture important for a healthy organization in a library setting but also provided proof that feedback from the OCDA survey, when taken seriously, can have practical organizational level benefits.
In 2007, ARL and the University of Maryland Libraries in partnership with the Industrial and Organizational Psychology program attempted to test the generalizability of the OCDA protocol across multiple library organizations. During Phase I, five ARL institutions tested a modified OCDA survey and validated the hypothesis that a healthy
analysis and presentation of the results.”2 As a member-driven enterprise the program operates within a non-profit environment adhering to objectives of 1) relevance to policy issues. known as ClimateQUAL™: OCDA. and focuses on measuring internal organizational climate and diversity. emphasize customer-driven libraries and demonstrate responsiveness and engagement in improving customer service.organization provides better customer service than do less healthy organizations. 2) credibility among data users and 3) trust among data providers (influenced by the IMLS articulation of the mission of data driven . ClimateQUAL™ is the latest assessment tool in the assessment toolkit supported by ARL and accessible through the StatsQUAL® gateway to library assessment tools. The protocol was transferred to ARL for ongoing operation of a library assessment service. teaching and learning. The tools available through StatsQUAL® are combining the power of both quantitative and qualitative methods and the goal is to integrate the various tools into a platform that allows easy data collection. ten ARL and non-ARL institutions expanded the pilot further refining the protocol. In 2008. The ARL Statistics and Measurement Program’s goal is “to describe and measure the performance of libraries and their contribution to research. ARL aspires to offering an integrated suite of library assessment tools that tell users’ library success stories. during Phase II. Ultimately.
However. thus StatsQUAL® serves as a platform for supporting sound policies.”9 We briefly review the ASA model and how it informs our understanding of the development and maintenance of the healthy organization. Indeed. Institutional policies need to be based on sound data. . StatsQUAL® is not simply an infrastructure for conducting surveys but supports services that are necessary to share lessons learned from the data collected as well as deliver training for developing action agendas and implementation plans within an institution and across different groups of institutions. then.8 In sum.activities).4 the growing diversity of the workplace presents organizations with a number of opportunities.3 As reviewed in Hanges. organizations must promote diversity. Aiken. For instance. Schneider proposes that organizations’ tendencies toward homogeneity make them less responsive to changes in the external environment. specifically.5 While diversity may lead to these negative consequences. Theory Changes in the composition of the American workforce reflect increasing amounts of diversity within both the working world and in communities at large. and Chen.7 Clearly. it may also result in reduced groupthink6 and other positive organizational outcomes. diversity has been linked to increased conflict and decreased cohesion. given the aforementioned potential negative consequences of increased diversity. Schneider asserts in his attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model that diversity is necessary for organizational survival. which may then lead to organizational death. it has been argued that an organization which effectively promotes and manages diversity to maintain organizational responsiveness is a “healthy organization. organizations must also learn how to effectively manage diversity. as well as challenges.
Climates as Communicators of the Diversity Imperative A substantial body of work has discussed the place of organizational climate as a tactic through which organizations can communicate what is rewarded. the organization is expected to impose a procedure to select employees whom are perceived to match the organization on certain values. organizations should foster a number of different climates to convey this message to employees and consumers. homogenization necessarily causes organizations to become less responsive to changes in the external environment. After these individuals apply. then. homogenous organizations cannot survive.12 In short.13 Clearly. We review these climates next. and expected. supported. Schneider11 proposes that it may also lead to organizational death. Without this responsiveness. Clearly. Thus. thus starting the ASA cycle again. if an organization wishes to promote and manage . the departure of non-matching employees from any organization will lead to increased homogeneity. While this homogeneity may lead to positive consequences. beliefs. it is not without fault.ASA and the Diversity Imperative Schneider’s ASA model10 proposes that individuals are attracted to organizations to which they perceive they are similar on values. a conclusion that can be drawn from ASA theory is that organizations must make diversity an imperative in order to survive. At this point. they are expected to terminate employment. and competencies. and other relevant characteristics. Indeed. climate can be used to convey what the organization values—what its goals and imperatives are. As discussed previously. beliefs. individuals may find that they do not match the organization to which they belong. as time goes on. In making diversity an imperative. While this procedure may help organizations and individuals align. over time.
which reflects the extent to which organizational polices. and actions align to clearly express the organization’s support for diversity. procedures. when employees know that their ideas will be valued. That is. Clearly. . diverse individuals should feel that they are welcomed and valued. in situations where cooperation is rewarded. which refers to the extent to which procedures encouraging the acceptance of minority opinions. it must cultivate climates that support diversity. Climate Imperatives as Indicators of Cooperation Allport15 highlights the role of cooperation in reducing intergroup bias. and beliefs.diversity. and expected.14 we identify nine climates that are expected to contribute to diversity management. regardless of whether or not they represent the majority opinion. intergroup bias should be reduced. In the current instrument. The second is Valuing Diversity. as indicators that an organization supports cooperation. are discussed next. Relevant imperatives addressed in five key climates. two aspects of deep diversity are measured. then. We view climates. are regarded as highly as those of the majority. Climate for Deep and Demographic Diversity. practice. In organizations with reduced intergroup bias. ideas. a climate for deep diversity should aide in diversity management. Climate for Deep Diversity A climate for deep diversity is one in which minority values. Thus. and Climate for Justice. Based largely on initial work on intergroup bias by Allport. ideas. The first of these is Standardization of Procedures. and values are equally expressed and instituted across all levels of an organization. supported. Climate for Innovation and Continual Learning. The following nine climate imperatives are assessed in the ClimateQUAL™ measure. they will feel that the organization fosters cooperation.
the more employees should also perceive the organization as one that cares about cooperation. The ClimateQUAL™ instrument assesses climate for demographic diversity in four areas: race. Distributive Justice refers to the extent to which employees feel that they are rewarded fairly. gender. but distinct from. in determining what rewards they deserve. and thus also. Informational Justice assesses how much information employees feel they have about rewards and the procedures used to determine them.Climate for Demographic Diversity Similar to. Interpersonal Justice addresses how fairly individuals feel they were treated during the process of reward determination. It is expected that a just environment is one in which all employees are treated fairly. a climate for demographic diversity reflects the extent to which demographic minorities are valued relative to demographic majorities. climate for justice should enhance perceptions of support for cooperation. a climate for demographic diversity should contribute to effective diversity management. The more that demographic minorities perceive they are welcomed and valued by the organization. Climate for Justice The current instrument measures a climate for four types of justice. applied consistently across time and people. Finally. and that they have feedback. Procedural Justice refers to the extent to which employees feel that procedures for determining rewards are fair. support for diversity. or some degree of influence. then. Thus. Since such a climate relies on . based on their efforts. Clearly. and all have a say. and sexual orientation. deep diversity. rank. Climate for Innovation Co-worker climate for innovation reflects the extent to which co-workers support each other in determining new ways to accomplish tasks.
Climate for Continual Learning Similar to climate for innovation. individual employees are expected to experience such affective benefits as greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Consequently. climate for continual learning reflects the extent to which development of skills is encouraged within the organization.communication—and thus. Likewise. This support is expected to come from both supervisors and coworkers. Then. we assert that the organization will benefit from increased management of diversity. we discuss a relevant organizational outcome expected when organizations correctly manage their diversity: positive perceptions of customer service. we discuss the seven employee outcomes that are expected to be affected by effective diversity management. co-worker support for innovation should then be a marker for a cooperative work context. Thus. As a marker for a cooperative context. climate for innovation is then expected to convey to employees the message that diversity is important to the organization. climate for continual learning is also expected to contribute to the effective management of diversity. How do we know if these climate imperatives are indeed addressing cooperation and diversity promotion? We assert that when diversity is properly managed. through which diversity can be effectively promoted and managed. cooperation—between work group members. climate for continual learning hinges on the assumption that coworkers are cooperative. like climate for innovation. Specifically. Next. and wish to encourage each other. Outcomes of Diversity Management We have argued that climate imperatives serve as indicators for a cooperative work atmosphere. employees will experience a number of positive outcomes. .
In cooperative contexts. organizations which effectively manage diversity should have more committed employees. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OBCs) reflect activities in which employees engage that are not part of their job description. Consequently. Organizational Commitment An employee with high organizational commitment feels positively about their organization. especially relative to other organizations. diversity management should result in employees participating in more OCBs. employees should feel more willing to give of their time and energy. Thus. and intends to stay for some time. Organizational Withdrawal When an employee undergoes organizational withdrawal. organizations that foster and manage diversity effectively should have more satisfied employees. This is likely to occur most often in cooperative contexts. yet help the organization function.Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction refers to the extent to which individuals assess their job positively overall. Organizational withdrawal is more likely when employees are dissatisfied—which is likely a more common outcome of competitive. Drawing from Allport’s16 distinction between cooperative and competitive contexts. as with job satisfaction. . it seems obvious that individuals in cooperative contexts will be more satisfied than those in competitive contexts. Therefore. they desire to leave the organization and attain employment elsewhere.
contexts. or affective. This should happen when employees are encouraged to learn. conflict should be much lower in cooperative organizations wherein which diversity is well-managed. Conflict can be seen as a hallmark of a competitive organization— correspondingly. These practices are more likely to be encouraged in cooperative versus competitive environments. Team Psychological Empowerment Team psychological empowerment results when employees feel that their work contributes greatly to a team task. Work Unit Conflict Two types of conflict are assessed in the current instrument. disagreements amongst team members. they truly care about and are invested in their work tasks. Thus. in cooperative contexts. enhance their skills sets.relative to cooperative. This kind of empowerment is likely most imperative. interpersonal conflict comes about as a result of personal. the cooperative context induced through diversity management should contribute to greater feelings of task engagement. Thus. Task Engagement When an employee experiences task engagement. effective management of diversity should lead to employees experiencing less desire to withdrawal from the organization. Thus. Task conflict results when employees disagree over how to complete a given task. Customer Service . and most fostered. management of diversity should lead to greater perceptions of team psychological empowerment. Alternatively. and pursue interesting work opportunities.
In doing so. then. Unfortunately.Employees are not the only ones who are expected to benefit from diversity management.19 Clearly. the increased contact between consumer and employees means that consumers are more likely to pick up on what employees are feeling. To draw this connection. Indeed. In sum. employee ratings of managerial endorsement of policies practices. one ClimateQUAL™: OCDA study does address the link between climate imperatives and customer service. we refer again to work by Schneider and his colleagues in the customer service literature. Parkington and Schneider18 discovered that customer service is negatively affected when employees’ values do not match organizational values. and a cooperative context is encouraged. While the entire model has not been addressed. and procedures were found to relate positively to customer service. in customer service industries. Likewise. and consumers will have greater perceptions of service quality. Indeed.’ . They argue that. this model has of yet not been completely tested. they will enhance their employees’ affect and behavior. organizations must make it an imperative to create a cooperative context through the strategic use of climate. Clearly. All of these outcomes can be directly linked to effective promotion and management of diversity. the organization as a whole should reap rewards when employees are treated fairly.20 These findings are reviewed in the section ‘Support for the Healthy Organization Hypotheses. Schneider and his colleagues17 propose that organizational climate specifically and greatly impacts customer service. the proposed model of the Healthy Organization stands to provide a much-needed framework through which to view diversity management. employees and organizations are expected to experience a number of positive affective and task-related outcomes in cooperative contexts.
. It is one of the tools that belong to the StatsQUAL® family of assessment tools which includes LibQUAL+® for measuring service quality. and ARL Statistics™ for annual library statistics.22 analyzed the effects of Climate for Demographic Diversity. Climate for Continual Learning. Hanges et al. and Climate for Justice on customer service perceptions. management of diversity is essential in maintaining organizational contact and responsiveness to the outside environment. Climate for Deep Diversity. Climate for Innovation. Hanges et al. then.21 ran a study assessing the extent to which certain climate imperatives contribute to relevant organizational outcomes. DigiQUAL® for measuring the quality of digital libraries. Survey Mechanics ClimateQUAL™ has been established in the tradition of the ARL New Measures Initiatives adhering to the need to provide data to the leadership of the library organization for making fact-based decisions. Results of this analysis show support for the healthy organization hypotheses. all five of these climate imperatives were found to significantly and positively impact consumer ratings of service quality.Support for the Healthy Organization Hypotheses Current findings indicate strong support for the notion that effectively managed diversity results in greater organizational outcomes. Specifically. These results lend support to Schneider’s23 assertion that organizations must maintain and encourage diversity in order to remain responsive to external changes. Clearly. That is. MINES for Libraries® for measuring the impact of networked electronic resources.
There is also one free-text comments box at the end of the survey. given the sensitive nature of the questions and responses. ClimateQUAL™: OCDA takes more than half an hour to complete and library leadership support is essential in making this protocol happen—neither staff nor leadership would like to waste staff time if the results are not used effectively. The 2009 implementation of the survey uses 7-point scales consistently across dimensions and questions have been refined over time to eliminate any deficiencies and to ensure high reliability and validity coefficients. A standard overview report is provided to all participants but only libraries with large enough sample sizes can receive additional analysis for specific subgroups within the organization.com. the former institution’s demographic breakdown allows this analysis because it will not reveal any individual identifiers. ClimateQUAL™ consists of approximately 200 questions representing the nine climate dimensions. This means that in certain instances. Detailed analysis is prepared and thoroughly reviewed by the researchers to ensure confidentiality is not compromised and further drilling into the data is only performed by the researchers at the University of Maryland and ARL Statistics and Measurement . Results are reported back to individual institutions in a way that will not compromise respondent identity. Respondent confidentiality is of paramount concern. seven organizational attitude scales. and additional demographic questions. an institution may be able to obtain deeper data from a certain scale than is available to another institution.ClimateQUAL™ is an online Web based survey administered online using SurveyMonkey. The survey period is 3 weeks. a well-known survey software that offers a variety of customization and data analysis options.
All data is owned by the University of Maryland Industrial/Organizational Psychology program and the Association of Research Libraries. ARL serves as a trusted third party that provides in depth independent analysis services. The protocol also collects extensive qualitative data in the form of comments. One of the ways ClimateQUAL™ differs from other surveys in the StatsQUAL® platform. Comparisons across institutions are performed only against the aggregated data. As a result. institutions receive reports on all respondents so they can compare their report to the normative data compiled from all participating libraries. is that the entire data set is proprietary. These comments have been shared in a variety of ways with participants during the first two years . In addition to receiving their own institutional analysis. for example the LibQUAL+® survey. Participating institutions receive prepared analysis of their results from the program’s researchers—including limited raw data when confidentiality can be maintained. the protocol is not easily scalable and requires commitment of resources to ensure that both the needs of the organization are met and that the needs of the individual respondents are respected. While each participating institution is free to use its own results and does not need permission from the researchers with regard to use or publication of its own reports. Again. the sensitive nature of the results and the potential issues raised by these results requires these additional quality control steps.Program staff. participants do not have direct access to the results of other libraries.
The second year a complete report of all the comments was provided after reviewing and editing the data for confidentiality purposes. Maurice Marchant’s landmark work Participative Management in Academic Libraries appeared signaling a major shift in management perspective.24 Within three years. they asserted that to succeed library administrators should abandon hierarchical structures and move to participative management. Value to the Administrator—The Leadership Context Thirty five years ago Arthur M.” they established (at least for ARL members) the conditions that made it so difficult for library directors at the beginning of the 1970s and made recommendations for improving the situation.25 . Downs published a paper that stimulated much discussion if not controversy. The qualitative comments will be provided in their entirety to the library participants and the respondents will be explicitly reminded that all their comments will be shared with their organization’s leadership. so comments will be disclosed as provided in future years starting in 2009. McAnnally and Robert B. The first year only summative descriptions were shared for each dimension with a few samples drawn from the words of actual respondents. In particular. There is not an easy way to scale the qualitative analysis and interpretation of the comments across multiple institutions. In “Changing Roles of Directors of University Libraries. The underlying philosophy of disclosing comments ensures that they are meaningful and practically useful to the organization in ways that direct action may be taken by the leadership of the organization based on the comments provided.of the protocol’s implementation.
27 More recently. therapeutic mangers. fund-raising skills. the dominant themes that have emerged are emphasis on the human side of management. Powell.”26 There is considerable evidence in the operation of libraries and the managerial styles of directors that academic libraries evolved in this direction.”28 Any objective reader might want to cry “foul” since this may seem like piling on. Yet. and assessment all grounded in the need for leadership. and legal skills.” while on the other. reading these lists elicits two responses that may seem contradictory—on the one hand.” sixty-two “individual traits. fact-based decision making. including: management skills. William Birdsall was calling on library managers to evince the skills of charismatic leaders. in her 1994 review of the McAnally-Downs article. They relied on a variety of data collection techniques to define “Key Attributes” that would be needed including thirty-one “abilities. teamwork. and other goals of the “human side” management theory that some would call “ambiguous. Hernon. and Young also started with the McAnnally-Downs article to develop an analysis of expectations. the “lists sound about right. Are these expectations reasonable and achievable and more importantly are they a guide to effective leadership for libraries? An important element to understanding how to employ these ideas is the concept of . human relations skills. enumerated the additional new set of skills that had come to reflect the life of the university library administrator. technical skills. one thinks “why would anyone want to do this job?” Over these three and a half decades. enablers of their work force.” sixteen “skills.” and twelve specific “areas of knowledge. communication skills. Rooks.By 1990. for those of us who have held these positions.
every staff member must. and measurement. become a manager and a leader—and the organization must treat them as though they have a brain in their head. I am suggesting that there is afoot in academic libraries what may be called an 'organizational development movement' that has as its goal the creation of the 'learning organization. The . this is an encouraging sign that we have recognized the only way to be successful in the current environment. I am not suggesting a lock-step mentality or a monolithic organizational vision is desirable —or.' In my view. Using normative scales and institutional results effectively.30 In many ways. The most effective techniques for remediation are not top-down. significant improvements can be achieved.29 Charles Lowry has articulated that: The management literature to which we so often look for guidance fundamentally emphasizes the role of managers and leadership. but those that engage the entire staff. in some measure. This provides feedback from the survey that is grounded in a baseline from the libraries that have already participated. ClimateQUALTM provides the ultimate management tool for effective organizational adaptation that uses deep assessment of a library’s staff to plumb the dimensions of climate and organizational culture important for a healthy organization in a library setting. In effect. energy and commitment of all staff must be mobilized to find our way.“continuous organizational development” grounded in teamwork. for that matter. achievable. learning. As important as I think these are. leadership. I also believe the external challenges to academic libraries are so great that to achieve great success in meeting them means the intelligence.
University of Maryland (UM) Libraries are a good test case with three snapshots of the staff using ClimateQUALTM—2000. and • Some “interventions” (or “improvement strategies”) that help address the issues arising from the survey. It should be concluded that work in this area has resulted in a healthy climate. and 2008. There are two perspectives on the UM experience that provide a sense of how the results of the ClimateQUALTM survey protocol can be of use for creating change: • The scalar data provided by the survey and an understanding of how to interpret it. Note that on each of the scale elements there is marked improvement from 2004 to 2008. To improve interpretation and understanding. thus the six point Leadership Climate scales provide an appropriate good point of departure for this discussion. The pivotal role of leadership has already been highlighted in this paper. Similarly. (Insert Table 1) Note that the Likert scales have varied in a 5-7 range. 2004. if the averages for the partner libraries is a measure—again UM Libraries demonstrate an acceptable pattern. we will be moving these to a seven-point range for all of the protocol scales and normalizing them for libraries that have already participate for multi-year consistency. Each of the Climate Scales in the Table shows UM’s multi-year range of responses and the averages for the Phase I and Phase II partners. ClimateQUALTM Themes Table 1 is a synopsis of the scale averages for each of the three survey administrations at UM over the last eight years. .
It is worth noting here that this is a long period and major efforts were made in the area of organizational development to achieve improvement in most of the climate themes not just those pertaining to leadership. Nothing could be more critical to making the point that the . Of course. there are good signs in the UM report and positive trend lines over eight years. themes that are substantially below the normative average and have fewer than 50% of the employees agreeing with them. Table 2 provides the percentages for the same climate themes. need further attention. Organizational climate averages that are higher than the normative sample or that have more than 50% of the employees agreeing are also informative. it is important not to just focus on the negative aspects of this report. Frankly. but UM felt strongly that the first action to be taken is sharing the results fully and openly with all library staff. then that theme should be examined further in future intervention efforts. Clearly. Interventions—What Did UM Do? With respect to the leadership climate. The full report grids of UM’s efforts (what we styled “interventions” and more recently “improvement strategies”) have been shared with partner libraries. This positive information needs to be considered along with the more negative information. looking at them can be daunting.Another way to look at the issue is the number of employees who responded positively to this portion of the survey. (Insert Table 2) If an organizational climate theme has fewer than 50% of the employees agreeing with that scale.
html) • • Held a luncheon each October to welcome new library staff. Developed the Learning Curriculum.edu/PASD/LPO/AdminMemos/memo40. • • • Services Task Force led to the creation of the first “teams” in public services.html) • Created the position of Coordinator of Personnel Programs to develop the areas of recruitment. performance review. and mentoring. Created a statement of support for participation in development activities for all library staff. • • Created the position of Assistant Dean for Organizational Development. (http://www. Among the interventions undertaken after the initial 2000 survey administration are the following: • • Established a monthly all staff meeting to enhance information sharing.umd.lib.effort of taking the survey was worth the time spent. tele-working. a comprehensive learning and education plan of over 150 content hours that was launched in May 2001. orientation.lib. (http://www. Conducted workshops specifically designed for supervisors including these examples (see the Learning Curriculum): o Rewards in Tough Times (dealing with morale and motivation issues) o Do You Supervise Students? (focusing on best practices for student supervisors) o Dealing with Differences (dealing with working in a multi-cultural climate) . Team based decision making expanded to the whole library system. Held “Town Hall” meetings to discuss perceived barriers to creating an open climate of communication.edu/groups/learning/curriculum.umd.
o Giving and Receiving Feedback (focusing on the “do’s and don’ts of feedback) o Time Management (how to best organize and manage one’s time) • Presentations to demystify how merit pools and cost-of-living increases were established and distributed. • Facilitators’ team established to assist units in problem solving and decision making. • Implemented Organizational Citizenship Expectations—OCE’s required as part of the individual work plans. • Ongoing use of the “Individual-Team-Organization Survey” to measure progress of team-based work. it was recommended that more assessment concerning ethnic differences be conducted. Among the interventions undertaken after the initial 2004 survey administration are the following: . In addition. the Libraries’ support for diversity. • The Leadership Practices Inventory—LPI adopted for identifying the strengths and areas for improvement in an individual’s leadership skills. It was noted. and teamwork has had positive consequences. that there were differences in the results by Division. After the 2004 administration of the survey a number of positive changes were reported since the 2000 survey including a positive work environment. employees are kept well-informed. however. they feel fairly treated.
edu/PUB/AWARDS/desc_awards. • Developed a system to recognize staff achievements and contributions beyond the Libraries’ Staff Awards Program (http://www.• Held focus groups with library staff within the Technical Services Division and Information Technology Division to help them address specific issues identified in the report.umd. • Charged each Division to develop 2-3 strategies for addressing the results of the OCDA. meeting agendas and discussion topics. • Charged teams to review their meeting management practices to ensure that teams were using meeting time efficiently. information sharing. Some examples include: o Created a Special Collections Orientation and Training Team to facilitate outreach. o Created a marketing plan for the Learning Curriculum to identify more effective means of publicizing activities. orientation and information sharing regarding the work of Special Collections. o Appointed a Government and Geographic Information Services Task Force to create a new model for service as a Regional Depository. o Established a blog for instructions. .html).lib. o Hired a consultant to evaluate the structure of the Information Technology Division and make recommendations to improve workflows and facilitate communication.
html). exempt staff. salary buyouts.” . administrative stipends.umd. • Revised the Organizational Citizenship Expectations and each library staff now applies these to their yearly work plans (http://www. • Creating supervisory core competencies. library faculty with permanent status. $1100. • Developed Guidelines for Teams. • Piloted a leadership assessment tool to help supervisors understand their strengths and areas for improvement. $500. (to be completed by February 2008) • Send one to two library staff to the campus Leadership Development Institute each semester. • Hold brown bag lunches and forums on diversity topics such as “Rethinking Diversity” and “LGBT Forum. which will support training. and library faculty without permanent status. graduate assistants. • Documented policy and procedures for merit and other HR processes such as acting capacity. performance review. a resource for ongoing team development (http://www.pdf).lib. and overload to provide all library staff with more information. $250.edu/groups/learning/citizenship.edu/groups/facteam/GuidelinesFinal050928. $250.umd. $1400. • • Evaluated and streamlined recruitment and hiring processes. Formalized financial support for development activities for library staff: nonexempt staff.• Reorganized the Human Resources and Budget Office into separate entities to more effectively address needs of the organization and library staff. and other development activities.lib.
In some cases. a table was created to map each of the survey concepts to the various interventions identified. But UM also learned that there was a consistent gap in perceptions of majority and minority employees in each of the survey results. and sexual orientation. Thus. gender. Similarly. . length of service. a library’s culture and climate. Several examples from the table are below: (Insert Table 3) It is important to remember that the data tables reflect aggregate numbers. varying from cursory to deep interpretation. looking at race and ethnicity can give deeper understanding of differences. About these UM may be able to do very little. religion. In the end. a specific intervention addressed multiple concepts. UM learned that the climate for diversity was good. and that all groups perceived improvement between 2000 and 2008. age. institutions use ClimateQUAL™ analyses in myriad ways. The full ClimateQUALTM reports are far richer. This serves as a reminder that there are larger social forces always at play. differences between the staff groups who were present for different years of the survey can be assessed. but within the library organization we can do quite a lot to change the diversity climate landscape. The unique organizational make-up of each library staff contributes to (if not creates outright) individual feelings or experiences specific to each institution. or in other words. They provide data based on the demographics— library unit.As a means for tracking how the results were addressed. Community-Building As with any survey results. we should tackle the problems in climate that are within our reach and unapologetically ignore those that are not. race and ethnicity.
There is no one-size-fits-all method of interpreting the results. One of the participants was engaged in focusing on the organizational development aspects of the findings and engaged into detailed follow up with focus group and consulting activities with staff members to understand the specific issues surfaced. In this setting there was also a driver for a five year review process of the leadership of the organization and a strategic planning process that started to unfold in full soon after the ClimateQUAL™ survey took place. the unique library climate must be understood by those attempting bring about change. One benefit of ClimateQUAL™ is the intimate community created by participating institutions. Our understanding of the improvement strategies developed by participants and their effect on service quality issues is unfolding as the diversity of the participating libraries is increasing. The participants have come together and have shared improvement strategies that they have developed partly in response to ClimateQUAL™ and partly in response to the rest of the organizational pressures they are experiencing. Through participation. A third institution followed up with staff dissemination of the results and engagement of all the participants in defining intervention strategies. Another participant engaged in follow up focus groups with only those departments where issues seemed to emerge. these institutions are demonstrating the value of the . In order to address identified issues or concerns in their entirety. nor is there a standardized method of determining and implementing changes necessary to improve the library’s organizational health.
staff as distinct individuals and committing to better understand and engage their organizations as a whole. A major challenge lies ahead of us in the area of supporting these institutions in developing and implementing improvement strategies as appropriate for their setting by emphasizing the right mix on diversity. leadership. an online shared workspace. This sharing of insights adds great value to the ClimateQUAL™ protocol. we expect to see higher job satisfaction. and is considered an integral part of its success. . interpersonal) and innovation and climate for learning aspects. empowerment and ultimately improved customer service. less work conflict. greater organization commitment. Sustaining continued commitment by the community is critical for the success of any new measures initiative and for ClimateQUAL™: OCDA as well. As organizational systems and procedures are adjusted properly to effect a ‘healthier’ organizational climate. Understanding the linkages between the elements of the organizational climate and improvements in customer service is what makes the ClimateQUAL™ beat engaging. organizational development. and conversations to share strategies used in further understanding issues raised by the survey results and actions taken to address these issues. justice (distributive. This growing community of participants uses in-person events. procedural. engagement.
Chen.Endnotes 1. “Diversity.C.” in Proceedings of the Library Assessment Conference Building Effective.arl. S. Organizational Climate.J. Harrison. “Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface and Deep-level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion. www. Angell. 2006.J. Practical Assessment. 2007) 359-368. Sustainable. Organizational Climate. . Hanges. ARL Statistics and Measurement Program. VA.J. 5.A.” Academy of Management Journal 41 (1998): 96–107. and X. Aiken. and X. 3. ed. D.P. J. “Surface. “Diversity. P. Francine DeFranco et al. J. Aiken. “Staffing in the 21st Century: New Challenges and Strategic Opportunities. (Washington. K. DC: Association of Research Libraries.R. P. September 25–27. P. and Organizational Culture”.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (2004): 1015-1039. Bell.org/stats. Ployhart.E.. Price and M. and Organizational Culture: The Role They Play in Influencing Organizational Effectiveness. Hanges.” Journal of Management 32 (2006): 868-897. “Climate and Customer Service: The Healthy Organization. Hanges et al.and Deep-level Diversity in Workgroups: Examining the Moderating Effects of Team Orientation and Team Process on Relationship Conflict. Mohammed and L. Charlottesville. 2. Chen. R. 4.” in preparation.H.
6. “Diversity.J. “Minority Dissent and Team Innovation: The Importance of Participation in Decision Making. Hanges et al.M. and M.C. C. and K. Hanges et al. B.J.” in Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology. Organizational Climate and Culture (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. S. 2003). Organizational Climate. Kinicki. 7. “Climate and Customer Service: The Healthy Organization. Schneider. Volume 12: I/O Psychology. 8.R. and Organizational Culture”. D.K. B. Tamkins.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001): 1191-1201. “Organizational Culture and Climate.” 9. & R.. “The People Make the Place.” Personnel Psychology 40 (1987): 437-453. ed. A. eds. A.. 1990). Schneider. “The People Make the Place. Niles-Jolly.” Organizational Dynamics 23 (1994): 17-29. Schneider. Borman. . “Creating the Climate and Culture of Success. Ilgen. Schneider. 565-594.. West. Ostroff. “Climate and Customer Service.” 10.. Hanges et al. Klimoski (New York: John Wiley & Sons. C.K. W.W. Gunnarson. 12. B. De Dreu and M.” 11. Ibid.
Reichers and B. Parkington. 18.13. Schneider. Schneider et al. Schneider. 1990). ed. . 1954). Ibid.J. 17. “Some Correlates of Experienced Job Stress. Allport. Ibid. Parkington and B. Schneider.” 21. G.. and V.. Schneider (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. “Some Correlates of Experienced Job Stress: A Boundary Role Study. B. no. Parkington and Schneider. J. The Nature of Prejudice (Reading. 14. 16.E.” Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (1980): 252-267. Hanges et al. Buxton.M. “Employee and Customer Perceptions of Service in Banks. “Employee and Customer Perceptions of Service in Banks. „Climate and Culture: An Evolution of Constructs. B.J.” in Organizational Climate and Culture. A. 2 (1979): 270–281. 5–39.” 19.” Academy of Management Journal 22. 15.” 20. Ibid. “Climate and Customer Service.W. J. MA: Addison-Wesley.
William F. Ibid. Rooks.” College and Research Libraries 50 (1989): 307-327. “Terms for Academic Library Directors. reprinted from Arthur M. Birdsall. no. Maurice P. Powell. “Changing Roles of Directors of University Libraries. Dana C. Peter Hernon. Part One. 23. 25.22.2 (2001): 121. Ronald R. 127. 28.” College & Research Libraries 34 (1973): 103-25. “University Library Directors in the Association of Research Libraries: The Next Generation. “The Library Manager as Therapist.” Library Trends 43 (1994): 47-61.” College and Research Libraries 62. Downs. McAnally and Robert B. “The Changing Role of Directors of University Libraries. Participative Management in Academic Libraries (Westport. Arthur M. CT: Greenwood Press: 1976). Marchant. 27.” 24. 26. Young. and Arthur P. Downs. Schneider.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 16 (1990): 209-12. “The People Make the Place. and 133. McAnnally and Robert B. .
and Measurement. The evolution of measurement and evaluation of libraries: A perspective from the Association of Research Libraries. 2008. no. Charles B. no. “Continuous Organizational Development—Teamwork. Kyrillidou. no. Evidence-based practice and organizational development in libraries. . Lowry.29. . Library Trends 56.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 1. 30. Leadership. “The More Things Change . 4 (2001): iix. Martha and Colleen Cook. Lowry. no. Charles B. Learning.” portal: Libraries and the Academy5. Library Trends 56. 4: 888-909. 4: 910-930. . 1 (2005): 1–6. 2008. Russell. Keith.
57 3.99 4.01 4.82 4.41 3.46 4.40 3.01 5.57 3.85 3.52 4.83 3.82 5.76 3.27 3.57 3.34 4.77 3.18 4.58 3.34 3.97 4.19 4.87 3.33 5.88 3.Table 1: ClimateQUAL™ 2008: Scale Averages The superscripts in the table indicate the number of points on each scale.91 3.07 4. University of Organizational Climate Climate for Organizational Justice Distributive Justice5 Procedural Justice5 Interpersonal Justice5 Informational Justice5 Leadership Climate Trust in Leader5 Leader-Membership Relationship Quality7 Manager’s Passion for Service5 Authentic Transformational Leadership5 Climate for Interpersonal Treatment Team-level Interpersonal 3.54 4.92 4.22 3.49 3.87 4.15 3.90 5.56 3.59 3.33 5.79 3.58 N/A Maryland 2.24 3.83 3.39 5.09 3.47 Phase II 2.08 5.10 5.88 4.64 4.23 4.41 5.46 3.55 N/A 5.94 N/A 3.26 5.99 3.31 3.71 UMD 2004 2.81 N/A 4.45 3.88 .78 4.80 4.33 3.90 3.68 4.40 3.31 4.10 4.92 3.58 2.52 Treatment of Employees5 Climate for Deep Diversity Non-discriminatory Practice6 Standardized Procedures6 Valuing Diversity6 Climate for Demographic Diversity Race5 Gender5 Rank5 Sexual Orientation5 Climate for Innovation Supervisory5 Co-workers5 Climate for Continual Learning5 Climate for Teamwork Benefits of Teams7 Organizational value of teamwork7 Structural facilitation of teamwork7 Informational Facilitation of Teamwork7 Climate for Customer Service5 Climate for Psychological Safety: Team- 4.48 5.08 4.55 3.40 3.39 3.44 4.47 4.36 3.11 3.76 4.65 3.18 4.52 3.40 3.67 5.31 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.60 4.25 5.21 UMD 2000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.43 4.57 N/A N/A 3.43 3.01 3.36 4.65 3.12 4.15 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.67 Treatment5 Managers Interpersonal 3.76 3.57 5.71 4.31 4.35 4.81 3.15 3.88 Phase I 2.
10 2.42 4.69 4.15 2.27 Library-Level5 Job Satisfaction5 Organizational Commitment7 Organizational Citizenship Behaviors7 Organizational Withdrawal8 Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace Individual empowerment5 Team empowerment5 Task Engagement5 Work Unit Conflict Interpersonal5 Task5 3.43 3.59 4.24 2.29 2.15 2.57 4.63 N/A N/A 4.88 5.47 4.19 2.49 3.01 3.67 4.44 2.41 4.91 5.16 3.58 N/A 2.42 N/A N/A N/A 2.01 N/A 3.64 N/A 3.44 3.level5 Climate for Psychological Safety: 3.59 .34 2.91 3.30 4.70 4.62 3.33 3.33 3.56 4.30 2.71 4.66 4.49 4.88 2.75 4.
Table 2: ClimateQUAL™ 2008: Percentage Agreement between Libraries These percentages reflect the number of employees who positively respond to the questions in each scale. University of Organizational Climate Climate for Organizational Justice Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Interpersonal Justice Informational Justice Leadership Climate Trust in Leader Leader-Membership Relationship Quality Manager’s Passion for Service Authentic Transformational Leadership Climate for Interpersonal Treatment Team-level Interpersonal 61% Treatment Managers Interpersonal Treatment of 57% Employees Climate for Deep Diversity Non-discriminatory Practice Standardized Procedures Valuing Diversity Climate for Demographic Diversity Race Gender Rank Sexual Orientation Climate for Innovation Supervisory Co-workers Climate for Continual Learning Climate for Teamwork Benefits of Teams Organizational value of teamwork Structural facilitation of teamwork Informational Facilitation of Teamwork Climate for Customer Service Climate for Psychological Safety: TeamMaryland 20% 39% 78% 53% 75% 81% 78% 70% UMD 2004 UMD 2000 Phase I Phase II 23% 40% 77% 54% 74% 79% 77% 70% 22% 28% 59% 59% N/A 74% 60% 45% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 61% N/A 29% 33% 78% 57% 69% 77% 72% 49% 69% 62% 75% 69% 71% 65% 59% 63% 83% 71% 88% 82% 87% 59% 84% 52% 77% 68% 78% 77% 52% 79% 71% 74% 82% 59% 69% 85% 87% 72% N/A 51% 77% 56% 68% 81% 46% 90% N/A N/A 52% 59% 63% N/A N/A N/A N/A 35% 64% 47% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 87% 62% 75% 91% 90% 65% 90% 37% 66% 72% 77% 74% 46% 79% 70% N/A 87% 73% 83% 88% 86% 61% 91% 54% 76% 64% 83% 74% 51% 78% 67% 75% .
level Climate for Psychological Safety: Library63% Level Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Organizational Withdrawal Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace Individual empowerment Team empowerment Task Engagement Work Unit Conflict Interpersonal Task 62% 62% 64% 24% N/A 60% 60% 62% 19% N/A N/A 53% N/A 11% N/A 60% 63% 76% 24% 63% 66% 67% 72% 23% 91% 44% 77% 15% 17% 92% 53% 85% 11% 11% N/A N/A N/A 12% 14% 93% 53% 86% 19% 14% 92% 49% 83% 14% 13% .
* Staff notified prior to mid-year review if documentation lacked OCE’s (2006). competitiveness. responsiveness to candidates. * Continue to adjust strategies. What Is Currently Being Done * Applying revised Organizational Citizenship Expectations library wide. Dissemination of Information People up to date but it differs by division * Recruitment and hiring processes evaluated by Planning and Adminstrative Services Division (PASD) in order to streamline and improve them (20056. * Evaluate the effectiveness of the application of OCE’s. * Emphasize LAG’s role in communicating with staff. * After hire of new Head of HR Office. * Applying revised Organizational Citizenship Expectations library wide. review all strategies (2007). .Table 3: University of Maryland Survey Concepts and Interventions Map Assessment Areas / Scales Survey Results Respect and Fair Treatment Results of Scales In the middle What Has Been Completed * Hearing held to discuss revised Organizational Citizenship Expectations (OCE’s) – (12/05). preliminary reports at 12/06 All-Staff Sessions). * Informing staff if PRD’s lack OCE’s (ongoing). and appeal of UMD as an employer. What Needs To Be Done Next Steps * Continue encouraging use of OCE’s in PRD’s and workplans. * Continuing to streamline processes and incorporate campus requirements. emphasizing efficiency. * Evaluate the effectiveness of the application of OCE’s.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?